There seems to be a common belief among people that the following are valid ways to propose an argument, fact, or anything remotely valid:
In my opinion....[insert ridiculous fact here].
On most occasions that the phrase 'in my opinion' is used, someone is giving you a point that has no validity whatsoever. They just want you to believe it because it is their opinion, and even though it has no proof, enough though there is no merit and no reason you should believe what they are saying, they somehow believe that if they state it is their opinion you will understand that it either
A. Doesn't make sense
or
B. Must be true since the person thinks it, regardless of no evidence being provided to back the statement up.
Here is another similar tactic:
From my personal experiences....[insert a situation, advice, fact here].
This is also another situation where an individual is deliberately taking the attention off of the facts and shifting it to their own personal beliefs to back up something.
People seem to be under the misguided belief that personal experiences and individual thoughts are conclusive. Meaning, they can be given actual weight and merit regardless of there being no proof or not of them.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Someone believing that gravity doesn't exist, no matter how hard they believe it and what their personal reasoning is for it, if they merely state 'from my personal experiences' or 'in my opinion', it proves nothing. Such statements should be taken lightly and with a grain of salt. Opinion is not evidence and it doesn't make things so. This is why it's so careful to look for opinion and treat it as such instead of taking such claims and statements as if they were to be true: they are not. No one can wish something true.
We can apply these concepts to many things, especially controversial things such as Religion.
There is no evidence to prove that there is no God; we've automatically discredited Atheism.
There is no evidence to prove that there is a God; we've automatically discredited Theism.
Now we are left at Agnosticism; there is no proof that there is or is not a God, therefore we cannot be sure of either concept until there is proof. We simply do not know, either way.
There is another form of personal opinion that creates an invalid argument.
"Being a [insert religion, sexuality, race, sex, etc. here] I believe [insert false belief]. That's because I am a [ repeat race, religion, etc. here]."
This isn't valid, well, it is valid, but what it implies discredits the user. The user of the phrase is implying that if they were not whatever they claimed to be, they wouldn't believe it. This suggests that they don't believe in their idea simply because they believe in it, but because they are part of a grouping of people who believe it which forces them to agree with the idea. It is a bad, bad, bad way to approach a topic because you are admitting indirectly that you don't really believe what you are saying.
Conclusion?
All of these things are invalid and shouldn't be used if you're trying to make a point in a debate or discussion. They all contain flaws in logic. I've used them all before; I'm not claiming that they don't serve there purpose in everyday interaction.
However, personal truths don't equate reality. Self belief doesn't make something true; only evidence makes it true, the only thing that are true are universal truths. One thing can't be true for one person that wouldn't be true for another person in the same situations under the same circumstances and conditions with the same abilities and the like. If something is true, it can be repeated and replicated.
Even one time occurring events could be replicated with the same exact conditions, persons, etc. That proves that one time occurring events are true- they just might not be able to be replicated due to the complexity of the conditions and skills and things associated with them.
Personal truths X Not X equal to facts.
In my opinion....[insert ridiculous fact here].
On most occasions that the phrase 'in my opinion' is used, someone is giving you a point that has no validity whatsoever. They just want you to believe it because it is their opinion, and even though it has no proof, enough though there is no merit and no reason you should believe what they are saying, they somehow believe that if they state it is their opinion you will understand that it either
A. Doesn't make sense
or
B. Must be true since the person thinks it, regardless of no evidence being provided to back the statement up.
Here is another similar tactic:
From my personal experiences....[insert a situation, advice, fact here].
This is also another situation where an individual is deliberately taking the attention off of the facts and shifting it to their own personal beliefs to back up something.
People seem to be under the misguided belief that personal experiences and individual thoughts are conclusive. Meaning, they can be given actual weight and merit regardless of there being no proof or not of them.
Unfortunately, this doesn't work. Someone believing that gravity doesn't exist, no matter how hard they believe it and what their personal reasoning is for it, if they merely state 'from my personal experiences' or 'in my opinion', it proves nothing. Such statements should be taken lightly and with a grain of salt. Opinion is not evidence and it doesn't make things so. This is why it's so careful to look for opinion and treat it as such instead of taking such claims and statements as if they were to be true: they are not. No one can wish something true.
We can apply these concepts to many things, especially controversial things such as Religion.
There is no evidence to prove that there is no God; we've automatically discredited Atheism.
There is no evidence to prove that there is a God; we've automatically discredited Theism.
Now we are left at Agnosticism; there is no proof that there is or is not a God, therefore we cannot be sure of either concept until there is proof. We simply do not know, either way.
There is another form of personal opinion that creates an invalid argument.
"Being a [insert religion, sexuality, race, sex, etc. here] I believe [insert false belief]. That's because I am a [ repeat race, religion, etc. here]."
This isn't valid, well, it is valid, but what it implies discredits the user. The user of the phrase is implying that if they were not whatever they claimed to be, they wouldn't believe it. This suggests that they don't believe in their idea simply because they believe in it, but because they are part of a grouping of people who believe it which forces them to agree with the idea. It is a bad, bad, bad way to approach a topic because you are admitting indirectly that you don't really believe what you are saying.
Conclusion?
All of these things are invalid and shouldn't be used if you're trying to make a point in a debate or discussion. They all contain flaws in logic. I've used them all before; I'm not claiming that they don't serve there purpose in everyday interaction.
However, personal truths don't equate reality. Self belief doesn't make something true; only evidence makes it true, the only thing that are true are universal truths. One thing can't be true for one person that wouldn't be true for another person in the same situations under the same circumstances and conditions with the same abilities and the like. If something is true, it can be repeated and replicated.
Even one time occurring events could be replicated with the same exact conditions, persons, etc. That proves that one time occurring events are true- they just might not be able to be replicated due to the complexity of the conditions and skills and things associated with them.
Personal truths X Not X equal to facts.
